Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The commercialisation of scientific knowledge has become a primary objective for universities worldwide. Collaborative research projects are viewed as the key to achieving this objective, however, the role of Principal Investigators (PIs) within these complex multi-stakeholder research projects remains under researched. This paper explores how networks in the scientific knowledge collaboration process are initiated and maintained from a multi-stakeholder perspective. It is based on case study evidence from 82 stakeholders in 17 research collaboration projects in Irish and German universities, which provides for a holistic view of the process, as opposed to prior research which has tended to report findings based on the analysis of one or two stakeholders. It finds that PIs play a lead role in establishing and managing stakeholder networks. This finding is unanimous for all stakeholders, irrespective of research centre size, type and geographical location. Not unlike the entrepreneur, the PI has to be ‘a jack of all trades’, taking on the roles of project manager, negotiator, resource acquirer as well as, the traditional academic role of Ph.D. supervision and mentoring. The findings suggest that PIs are better placed than Technology Transfer Office managers to act as boundary spanners in bridging the gap between science and industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Mäkel, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics, Group for Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship, productive unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S. (2002). Universities, Academics, and Spinout Companies: Lessons from imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 133–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C. (2009). Government centrality to university–industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, 38(10), 1505–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation. (2009). Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany. Berlin: EFI.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2012). R&D expenditure of GDP. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Role and strategic use of IPR in international research collaborations. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities.

  • Fontes, M. (2003). A closer look at the process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge as conducted by academic spin-offs. In R. Oakey, W.During & S. Kauser (Eds.), New technology-based firms in the new millenium (Vol. II). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

  • Forfas. (2009). Research and development statistics in Ireland 2009: At a glance. Dublin: Forfas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forfas. (2010). Review of supports for exploitation of intellectual property from higher education research. Dublin: Forfas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goktepe-Hultèn, D. (2008). Why and how do scientists commercialize their research? Towards a typology of inventors, 2008-071. Jena: Jena Economic Research Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halinen, A., & Tornroos, J. A. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1285–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Z. W. (2004). The academy and industry. A view across the divide. In D. G. Stein (Ed.), Buying in or selling out? The commercialization of the American research university (pp. 153–160). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INSEAD. (2011). The global innovation index 2011. Fontainebleau: INSEAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, V. K. (1997). Commercializing new technologies: Getting from mind to market (3rd ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Evans, D., & Klofsten, M. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: The role of the. R&D Management, 29(1), 47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, D., & O’Leary, E. (2007). Is Irish innovation policy working? Evidence from Irish high-technology businesses. Dublin: Paper presented to a Meeting of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland on 25th October 2007.

  • Kienbaum Managment Consultants GmbH (2006). Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezueglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfaehigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen. Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des BMBFI.

  • Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2009). How does tacit knowledge transfer influence innovation speed? The case of science based entrepreneurial firms. 2009/554. Gent: Working Paper Universiteit Gent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of university-business collaboration. Norwich: HM Stationery office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, N., Kerr, R., & Robinson, S. (2008). Multiple perspectives on the challenges for knowledge transfer between higher education institutions and industry. International Small Business Journal, 26(6), 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Turning science into business—Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. L. (2004). Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy, 33(4), 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C. (2001). Case research in marketing. Marketing Review, 1(3), 303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2008). A dyadic study of “champions” in university-industry relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevitch, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7/8), 879–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(4), 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocks, S., Carson, D., & Gilmore, A. (2007). Understanding small business enterprise networking: A qualitative case approach. In D. Hine & D. Carson (Eds.), Innovative methodologies in enterprise research (pp. 214–231). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, M., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2006). Profiles of academic activities and careers: Does gender matter? An analysis based on French life scientist CVs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellenthin, M. O. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. (2003). Data requirements for assessing the private and social returns to strategic research partnerships: Analysis and recommendations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spilling, O. R. (2004). Commercialisation of knowledge—A conceptual framework. NCSB 2004 Conference, 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research: Tromsø.

  • Thorburn, L. (2000). Knowledge management, research spinoffs and commercialization of R&D in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(2), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, F. (2004). Commercialization of research: A case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LInK Research Centre, DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Diana Nadine Boehm & Teresa Hogan

Authors
  1. Diana Nadine Boehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Nadine Boehm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boehm, D.N., Hogan, T. ‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. J Technol Transf 39, 134–149 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation